“A woman’s right to chose comes before freedom of speech”.

Qonold · 2012-06-07T01:52:23+00:00

The existence of LifeChoice Sydney, a secular and non-partisan organisation aiming to promote discussion of abortion and euthanasia, is under threat just a week after it was approved by the University of Sydney Union.

They have mooted an amendment to the Union’s constitution that prohibits the establishment of any society that is pro-life. They have even proposed that the Union representatives who approved the society be “censured”.

And this, my friends, is why I promote 100% freedom of speech. Governments claim limiting speech "is to protect us", and that might be true, but that power will certainly fall into the wrong hands in only a matter of time.

littleelf · 2012-06-07T01:08:09+00:00

The two are in conflict how? The argument is that a women's right to have her choices go completely unexamined is somehow important?

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-06-07T01:28:39+00:00

Censorship is the last bastion of a position that cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Legolihkan · 2012-06-07T00:20:08+00:00

Disgusting hypocrisy.

Irrel_M · 2012-06-06T22:31:36+00:00

That...that doesn't even make...what?

That is the dumbest thing I've read this summer.

Dark_Moose · 2012-06-07T03:46:52+00:00

Anyone who has ever been on the controversial or minority side of an argument/discussion then went home instead of prison or being beaten/shot or otherwise censored can not be allowed to say this.

So stupid...

ThePigman · 2012-06-07T01:11:20+00:00

"This isn’t feminism; this is frenzied, foam-flecked paranoia."

Sounds exactly like feminism.

douglasmacarthur · 2012-06-07T13:37:07+00:00

They dont conflict. Author is confusing a woman's right to choose with a woman's right to live in a society without criticism of that type of choice.

I think those criticisms are stupid, but, they don't violate her rights, anymore than an ill-informed criticism of an editorial violates the author's free speech.

2012-06-07T06:55:25+00:00

[permanently deleted]

My-Work-Reddit · 2012-06-07T14:25:20+00:00

Wow ...

Seeing as how free speech affects 100% of the people, but a woman's right to chose affects 50% of the people, mathematically speaking, free speech wins out.

loony636 · 2012-06-07T12:12:20+00:00

This article is full of misinformation. A motion by the University of Sydney Union to just call the organisation 'discriminatory' was voted down. They're registered and eligible for Student Union funding. No one is foaming at the mouth.

But to be clear, the reason groups like these isn't for censorship and it isn't because feminism can't stand up to criticism. Its because every organisation in the world has been scarred by the experiences of what happens when you actually let pro-life groups express their 'freedom of speech'; you get bigots crying bloody murder, with a huge risk of violence and even death. Just look at what happens outside abortion clinics pretty much world wide. The last thing anyone wants is more of that in our universities.

There's already a ton of aggressive student activism at most universities. At Monash, the Socialist Alternative is banned every second year for violating the codes of conduct regulating speech at universities. A lot of people don't want to see that same issue repeated by a group that addresses issues far more divisive than those of the SA and has a history of doing it in far more aggressive ways them too.

But whatever, the group will achieve absolutely nothing. No one is going to change their minds about abortion and euthanasia law based on a few more ranty students thrusting fliers in their face. It'll just be another group of people to dodge on the way to the Union building. There wont be any 'discussion', just more groaning as yet another group of student activists try to get their point across to a group of people that will never agree with them.

But I think there's also an extent to which people are missing the scope of the issue. There are a lot of Christian societies on those campuses, and they are universally pro-life, and often do try to spread that message. The concern isn't that pro-life has no place on campus; its that that group will be far more trouble than it could possibly be worth.

EDIT: This is probably the clearest enunciation I've found (quoted by The Australian, of all places): "Realistically there are going to be a lot of women on campus who have had an abortion and I don't think they need to come to uni to face a society who calls them up on one of the hardest choices they've had to make."

EvilPundit · 2012-06-06T22:49:26+00:00

What does this have to do with the MRM? This is about pro-choicers at a university.

Title	“A woman’s right to chose comes before freedom of speech”.
Author	EvilPundit
Upvotes	41
Comments	40
Date	June 6, 2012 10:08 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/uop8b/a_womans_right_to_chose_comes_before_freedom_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-womans-right-to-chose-comes-before-freedom-of.1020283 https://theredarchive.com/post/1020283

Comments